Content uploaded by Jing Lu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jing Lu on Oct 27, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
Lean Six Sigma leadership in higher education institutions
Jing Lu, Chad Laux, Jiju Antony,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jing Lu, Chad Laux, Jiju Antony, (2017) "Lean Six Sigma leadership in higher education institutions",
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 66 Issue: 5, pp.638-650,
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-09-2016-0195
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-09-2016-0195
Downloaded on: 05 July 2017, At: 13:46 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 51 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 82 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Lean Six Sigma for higher education", International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 66 Iss 5 pp. 574-576 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJPPM-03-2017-0063">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2017-0063</a>
(2017),"Implementing Lean Six Sigma into curriculum design and delivery – a case study in
higher education", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 66
Iss 5 pp. 577-597 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-08-2016-0176">https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJPPM-08-2016-0176</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:281668 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
Lean Six Sigma leadership in
higher education institutions
Jing Lu and Chad Laux
Department of Technology Leadership and Innovation,
Purdue University, West Layfayette, Indiana, USA, and
Jiju Antony
Department of Business Management, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate whether a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) leadership
model could be effectively utilized to resolve efficiency and effective issues like rising costs, quality of
education, graduation and retention rates encountered in higher education institutions (HEIs) in the modern
era.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors systematically reviewed the literature on key concepts of
LSS and leadership in HEIs in to develop a theoretical model using an inductive theory-building approach in
accordance with the exploratory nature of the study.
Findings –The results of the study proposed a conceptual LSS leadership framework, which provides a
basis for testing of LSS leadership representations in HEIs. The results suggest that LSS leadership has
advantages for HEI to overcome currents issues and challenges.
Research limitations/implications –This research is a theoretical study based on the existing literature
that identified characteristics that may be adopted in higher education. The proposed LSS leadership
framework is based upon leadership, statistical thinking, continuous change and improvement. This model is
based upon service and the concepts of adaptive, rather than technical work, of leaders in higher education.
Practical implications –The proposed LSS leadership framework brings new aspects and perspectives of
leadership in HEIs. LSS leadership model has its practical meaning in providing a fundamental base for HEIs
to overcome challenges, fulfill missions, and sustain improvements.
Social implications –HEIs are a foundation for principles of democracy, equality and diversity. HEIs have
been a path for citizens but HEIs are facing challenges that are reducing the ability of individuals to improve
themselves. Leadership of HEI needs to incorporate new principles to adapt to a changing society.
Originality/value –LSS project leaders have achieved improved bottom line results and customer
satisfaction in a wide range of industries, but LSS application in the HEIs remains to be explored. This paper
proposes an effective LSS leadership model, which can help improve the quality of education, reduce
non-value added costs and enhance operational efficiency of HEIs.
Keywords Lean Six Sigma, Leadership, Higher education, Public sector organizations
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a critical role in our society. Since the
establishment of early technical colleges to today’s industrialized “Knowledge enterprise,”
institutions of higher education have been a corner stone in educating society’s leaders, an
incubator for advanced technologies, and an accelerator for economic development. Higher
education holds a unique position holds a unique position because it is a “repository for
scholarship and knowledge”(Farnsworth, 2007). Higher education not only affects students,
parents, and employers, but also almost all citizens, who have benefited from advanced
researches in science, medicine, and technology (Weisbrod et al., 2008). In the USA, higher
education holds three major social missions: teaching, researching and public service
(Weisbrod et al., 2008). The teaching mission is achieved by providing higher education
opportunities to all young people (Weisbrod et al., 2008). Research universities are the
cornerstones that contribute to the second social mission (Weisbrod et al., 2008). The third
social mission has two components: increasing individuals’personal earning power and
empowering individuals to contribute to society (Weisbrod et al., 2008).
International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
Management
Vol. 66 No. 5, 2017
pp. 638-650
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-09-2016-0195
Received 2 September 2016
Revised 14 January 2017
Accepted 6 February 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
638
IJPPM
66,5
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
However, there have been great organizational and economic shifts in the HEI
environment causing changes and challenges. Globalization, which is based on the market-
driven principle, generates more challenges than opportunities for HEIs, especially for HEIs
in developing countries (Yang, 2003). The new forms of higher education, including massive
open online courses, distance learning and artificial intelligence have been changing
higher education and create both challenges and opportunities. Beside those global
factors, HEIs also face their regional and local challenges. Africa, a continent with more than
300 universities, has difficulties to establish general principles and solutions because of the
immense diversity of HEIs and the contexts within these HEIs operate (Teferra and Altbach,
2004). For example, in Yemen, there is no standard measure to evaluate higher education
quality (Muthanna and Karaman, 2014). In China, the mass higher education system faces
challenges with fair distribution of equality and opportunities (Wang, 2011). In the USA, the
previous two decades have seen a decline in support for higher education from its traditional
sources of funding and an increased call for more accountability of public funding.
Concurrently, the financial model undergirding HEIs does not support their abilities to carry
out their teaching missions. According to the US Department of Education, 43 percent of
schools have an unsustainable financial position. Their financial statements have grown
significantly weaker for the past five years (Denneen, 2014). The cost of higher education
has jumped more than 13-fold compared to records dating to 1978, illustrating bloated
tuition costs even as enrollment slows and graduates struggle to land jobs ( Jamrisko and
Kolet, 2014). The majority of HEIs face pressure with declining budgets, even if the absolute
numbers of students increases (Kanter, 2011). Since 2011, US HEIs have experienced a
significant increasing number of students. In 2009, President Obama established an
ambitious goal: “by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college
graduates in the world”(Kanter, 2011). To reach the goal, 60 percent of the 25-34 age range
need attend a two- or four-year institution of higher education (Kanter, 2011). The current
statistic shows only 42 percent of Americans in that age range hold a higher education
degree (Kanter, 2011). The growing number of students requires US HEIs to optimize
resources and budgets and improve efficiency in operations. HEIs are also witnessing a
looming leadership challenge. The average age of presidents in the US universities
and colleges is 61. Two decades ago, it was 52. According to the American Council on
Education’s report, an increasingly “seasoned”group leads the top universities and
colleges (Ebersole, 2014).
In order to address this leadership bottleneck in the HEIs, there needs to be an
entrepreneurial culture amongst the leaders and top-level management. HEIs are
struggling to reach long-term goals. Lean Six Sigma (LSS) is a powerful methodology for
enhancing customer satisfaction and improving bottom line results (Antony et al., 2012).
Since its inception in manufacturing industry, LSS has been widely adopted in a variety of
industries today including services, healthcare and banking to reduces waste and improve
operational efficiency. In the HEI environment, there are considerable operational wastes
in human resources, finance, administration and other activities. There are major
opportunities for HEI to eliminate waste, meet budget requirements, and meet ultimate
goals. Recently, HEIs have started adopting the LSS methodology. According to Kim
(2010), the implementation of LSS at a university, a non-profit organization, is an attempt
to accomplish corporate-like growth. Within this method, leadership in higher education
incorporates a reward scheme and shifts focus more to customer satisfaction. To fully
understand and implement LSS methodology in HEI, LSS leadership is better suited for
HEIs than traditional leadership. The LSS leadership model integrates various existing
leadership models with technical aspects in the LSS methodology. The model provides
HEIs a perspective to work and grow as a more process oriented organization and reach
the best performance. The purpose of this paper is to offer a leadership model for HEIs,
639
LSS leadership
in HEIs
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
based on the existing literature, for potential adoption by HEI leaders. The next section
reviews the literature of leadership, LSS, and HEIs. Based upon these areas, a model for
HEI adoption is offered.
2. Review of the literature
2.1 Traditional leadership
In the following section, we review leadership theories that have contributed to leadership
evolution over the past 100 years. For each leadership theory, we briefly introduce its
theoretical rationale.
Trait theories: trait theories were early leadership theories that sought to distinguish
personal characteristics of effective leaders from those of non-leaders (Ibukun et al., 2011).
In early scientific leadership studies, leadership traits were widely accepted as immutable
properties that future leaders were born with (Zaccaro, 2007). In Kirkpatrick and Locke’s
(1991) (as cited in Hernandez et al., 2011) neo-trait approach, core leadership traits are critical
to leadership as a “precondition”instead of a key.
Behavioral theories: another major area of our leadership research after trait approach
was the behavioral approach. The early research in the behavioral approach emphasized
distinguishing the differences between task- and people-oriented behaviors in leadership
(Hernandez et al., 2011). Two institutions notably advanced the behavioral leadership
approach: Ohio State University and the University of Michigan. In 1945, the Ohio State
developed the Leader-Behavior Description Questionnaire, which categorizes leadership
behaviors into the dimensions of consideration and initiating (Yukl, 1971). The University
of Michigan studies revealed the leadership behaviors divided in to differences in
employee-centered vs production-centered (McCleskey, 2014).
Contingency theories: in the 1960s, researchers began to develop new leadership
approaches along with recognizing the limitations of behavioral theories. Fiedler (1967), the
pioneer of contingency theories, posited that leadership effectiveness depends upon the
interaction of certain leadership styles with specific situational attributes, referred as
“situational favorableness.”Instead of arguing which leadership style suits all situations
best, Fiedler (1967) acknowledged that environments decide the level of the effectiveness of
certain leadership styles. A subsequent “Path-goal”theory, which identifies leadership style
as supportive, participative, delegating and directive, pointed out that effective leadership
style evaluates employees’path to success based on the employees’own characteristics and
situational demands (Hernandez et al., 2011).
Transformational and transactional theories: according to Bass (1985) (as cited in
Given, 2008), transformational leadership includes four critical elements: idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration.
Transformational leadership pays great attention to the followers’personal outcomes and
achievements; and the followers are inspired to pursue extra work to accomplish
organizational goals (Odumeru and Ogbonna, 2013). Transactional leadership emphasizes
supervision, compliance and performance accomplishment through contractual
agreement, rewards, and punishment (Hernandez et al., 2011). Transactional leadership
focuses on following processes rather than promoting forward-thinking skills (Odumeru
and Ogbonna, 2013).
2.2 Leadership in HEIs
Leadership is a popular topic, not only in the popular press, but also in academic research. The
study of leadership as an organized social-scientific endeavor emerged in the early 1930s
(House and Aditya, 1997). Every decade since the 1930s has seen different views of leadership
emerge, from “inducing obedience,”to moving the organization in a specific direction, to the
art of persuading, influencing or “inspiring others”(Bass and Bass, 2009, p. 15).
640
IJPPM
66,5
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
One key context that has been discussed in HEI leadership is the societal pressures HEIs
face, given today’s economic challenges (Barnett, 2004; Ramsden, 1998). Issues, such as
affordability, accountability, and relevance to the innovation-based economy have led to
calls for the leadership of HEIs to reform (Drew, 2006; Marshall, 2007; Mead et al., 1999).
The traditional path to leadership within HEIs has been for academics, who have
demonstrated academic research prowess in their discipline, to be promoted into
administrative positions following a collegial form of governance (Goodall, 2006; Yielder and
Codling, 2004). This path has been criticized as inadequate preparation for leading HEIs in
today’s marketplace. In response, several HEIs have rapidly replaced their governance
approaches with management principles adopted from the private sector with heavy
emphasis on audit and control (Van Ameijde et al., 2009).
These management principles have been criticized, however, for not adequately
adjusting for the unique context and culture of higher education. Processes such as
“performance measurement, quality control, and audit aimed at improving the effectiveness
and accountability of HEI have at the same time contributed to the creation of additional
bureaucratic layers of control which have often been experienced as inhibiting
organizational effectiveness and responsiveness”(Van Ameijde et al., 2009, p. 764). These
managerial processes often run counter to the “traditional values of academic freedom and
autonomy, democratic participation and the variety of academic interests”(Spendlove, 2007,
p. 407) within HEI.
Despite these tensions, the increased accountability processes in HEI have led to the need
for university leaders to develop the ability to adapt and change. Drew (2006) pointed out that
HEI leaders are required to balance “the demands of constantly increasing administrative and
reporting requirements with the advancement of scholarship and knowledge, universities are
caught between the two worlds of ‘academe’and ‘business’” (p. 118). Some research has
indicated that charismatic or transformational leadership styles are most effective in today’s
educational contexts (Basham, 2012; Muijs et al., 2006; Neumann and Neumann, 1999). In a
review of literature, Spendlove (2007) identified competencies for effective leadership in higher
education finding that academic credibility and experience were key, as well as people skills,
such as the ability to communicate well with others.
2.3 LSS in HEIs
Lean management principles focus on eliminating non-value added activities; especially,
lean targets on materials and information throughout the management processes. The first
applications of lean management were recorded in the Michigan plants of Ford
manufacturing in 1913 (Laureani and Antony, 2012). Lean can be utilized in all fields to
deliver products or services to customers on time. Six Sigma is a rigorous data-driven
technique that seeks to eliminate root causes of defects. The Six Sigma methodology was
developed by Bill Smith in Motorola in the 1980s. The goal of implementing Six Sigma was
to reduce the number of defects to no more than 3.4 parts per million products. By reducing
excessive process variation, Six Sigma achieves a stable and predictable process.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, lean management principles and Six Sigma began
to be integrated together. To get the best outcomes of the two methodologies, the LSS
methodology utilized both toolboxes of lean and Six Sigma. LSS is a business improvement
methodology that combines Henry Ford’s Lean Manufacturing process and Six Sigma
introduced by Motorola (Atmaca and Girenes, 2011). GE and Motorola are the best known
pioneers who have successfully adopted LSS. A copycat phenomenon was created with
many followers around the world looking forward to replicating their successes.
The majority of the followers are either from manufacturing or service industries.
HEIs have only recently engaged in aspects of this method of process improvement
(Antony et al., 2012). Due to the organizational and cultural differences of HEIs and the
641
LSS leadership
in HEIs
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
industrial organizations, implementing LSS in HEIs is not the same as in manufacturing
companies or service organizations. There are context-specific barriers for HEI to adopt LSS
methodology in the similar ways. HEIs have different leadership structures, incentive
schemes, and performance measurements than industrial and service organizations. Those
differences mean that the LSS project processes used in HEIs need to be customized to suit
the specific environment. Taking leadership as an example specifically, leadership
structures in HEIs are largely hierarchical in nature and distributed across units,
departments, and colleges with department heads or chairs, deans, and provosts in formal
leadership roles. However, with unique components such as tenure and shared governance,
leadership can be shared across the faculty and staff through committees charged with
specific goals or initiatives that might impact policies or procedures. Given these contextual
factors, LSS implementations might need to evolve from their origins in industry to better
meet the needs of HEIs.
3. Discussion
LSS leadership is essential to the success of LSS projects and continuously improvement.
However, there is no clear definition of “LSS leadership.”LSS leadership is not independent
from the existing leadership models. Instead, traditional leadership theories provide solid
foundations for the development of LSS leadership. Traditional leadership theories are the
basic elements of leadership concept. To successfully implement LSS methodology, LSS
leaders are expected to obtain the attributes of other leadership principles.
LSS methodology is a customer-focused methodology, which aims to increase both
internal and external customers’satisfaction. Thus, LSS leadership requires leaders to
obtain a “service leadership”perspective, which means to serve customers. Greenleaf and
Spears (2002) note that leaders should focus on motivating followers to reach their potentials
through building a trust and respect environment (Farnsworth, 2007; Van Dierendonck
et al., 2014). Based on the servant leadership theory, leaders should prioritize employees’
needs instead of leaders’personal requirements (Van Dierendonck et al., 2014). In the context
of LSS, the idea of servant leadership needs to be extended. The LSS leaders should not only
hold the “service”belief for internal customers, employees or followers, but also for external
customers. For example, LSS leaders thrive to reduce non-value added activities in
processes, which directly increase external customer satisfaction.
LSS methodology is also a project-based methodology. When operating projects, leaders
may need to adapt to the continuously changing process and unexpected situations. LSS
leadership is dynamic. Adaptive work is based upon the idea that the challenges of
leadership are difficult to define, systemic, and have no easy answers (Heifetz and
Laurie, 1997). The goal for leaders engaged in this type of model is to put the change
required in an organization back to the stakeholders (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). Adaptive
work requires learning is required to address the conflicts in values that people hold, or to
diminish the gap between the values people stand for and the reality they face (Heifetz and
Laurie, 1997). Overall, adaptive work requires a change in values, beliefs or behavior.
Adaptive work recognizes that Heifetz and Laurie (1997) leadership is work and may be
learned. In addition, this model of leadership recognizes that stakeholders’values vary. In a
HEI, the mission of the institution includes many different types of stakeholders: students,
faculty, administration, alumni and based upon funding, potentially the public. All these
types of personnel have a differing stake in the institution. According to Heifetz (1994),
leadership can be defined as an activity and leadership is aligned with doing adaptive work.
Heifetz (1994) states that viewing leadership as adaptive work gives leaders advantages in
tracking the social outcomes of leadership and evaluating leadership in an ongoing
progress. By excising this leadership principle, LSS leaders are able to make sure that every
step or phase in a project is always oriented to the ultimate goals. Moreover, adaptive work
642
IJPPM
66,5
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
means that leadership in an organization is not necessarily tied to particular titles or
positions: governance is conducting policies, actions, and affairs of an organization
throughout (Merriam-Webster, 2016). Governance is a characteristic of adaptive work: a
skill for the adaptive leader is exposure and orchestration of conflict (i.e. the
acknowledgment of internal contradictions) and mobilizing people to learn new ways
(Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). The strategic questions addressed in adaptive work is which
stakeholders have to adjust their ways to make progress on problems and how to process
issues or strengthen bonds of individuals together as a community of interests (Heifetz and
Laurie, 1997). Anyone may exercise leadership in various situations. This recognizes that
there are competing visions for the reality of the organization. These principles give a LSS
team the flexibilities to encourage individuals to identify improvement opportunities in
different organizations and scenarios.
Figure 1 refers to a leadership model that utilizes a process approach. Adaptive
leadership recognizes that leadership can be learned. This adaptive leadership process
starts with identifying the adaptive challenge. Adaptive challenges have not easy solutions,
are systematic, where the solutions are not solved at the executive level; rather, than
providing solutions, leadership asks the tough questions, often resulting in employee
distress (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). Regulating that employee distress is often a subsequent
step in this model but rather than quelling the conflict, drawing out the issues and giving the
work of change back to the stakeholders is the leadership’s job in this arrangement.
The process is ongoing; monitoring, assessing and revision are characteristic of the
feedback loop in the adaptive approach (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997).
LSS leadership is distinguished from the existing leadership models because it not only
integrates various leadership theories together, but also embraces LSS technical aspects in
the leadership model. The current leadership models do not contain technical components.
The following are some of the fundamental technical aspects of LSS leadership.
Leadership team: in the context of Six Sigma, the concept of “leadership”is rooted in all
the elements in an organization, instead of just one person (McCarty et al., 2005). In a Six
Sigma project, the leadership should extend from top management, who shapes the vision of
the project, to those leaders, who directly lead the teams to work through the project
(McCarty et al., 2005). All roles in Six Sigma deployment require some level of leadership.
The “Executive”level is responsible for managing setbacks and retreat, identifying
improvement opportunities at a strategic level, and committed to driving changes
(Pries, 2010). “Champion”selects Black Belts and chooses Six Sigma projects, as well as
managing lessons learned (Pries, 2010). “Master Black Belt”provides training for Black
Identify the
Adaptive
Challenge
Regulate distress
Direct disciplined
attention to issues
Give work back to
stakeholders
Monitor, assess,
and revise
Source: Heifetz (1994)
Figure 1.
Adaptive work
process
643
LSS leadership
in HEIs
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
Belts and Greens Belts and supervises projects (Pries, 2010). “Black Belt”works as a
full-time team leader, coordinates functional team leaders and trains “Green Belts”
(Pries, 2010). “Black Belt”is responsible for shepherding the project team to project success
(Thomson, 2003). “Green Belt”leads projects that are typically smaller than those for
Black Belts (Pries, 2010). “Process Owner”manages related full-time employees and
influences their work (Pries, 2010). Each role in the project team has its own leadership
lessons (Thomson, 2003).
Statistical thinking: Six Sigma projects are extremely structured, applying scientific
management approaches (Maleyeff and Campus, 2007). LSS goal setting includes two key
components: voice of customer and data. Excellent Six Sigma leaders recognize that each
customer is different. Therefore, dedicated leaders carefully listen to customers to obtain a
comprehensive understanding of an organization (McCarty et al., 2005). In the “Define”
phase of a Six Sigma project, Six Sigma leaders set up project goals with a Pareto analysis,
identifying deliverables, quantifying critical to quality metrics, calculating rolled
throughout yield and sigma level, and cycle time, etc. (Pyzdek and Keller, 2009). The goal
should be shared and understood by the entire team (Pyzdek and Keller, 2009). In the
“Measure”phase, the Six Sigma team collects data on the current status to build the
baseline performances of the projects and are established by validated metrics to
monitor progress (Noone et al., 2010). “Analyze”deals with evaluating the data with
statistical tools to generate patterns and possible casual relationships to find out
“root cause”(Noone et al., 2010). As project goals established on data analysis, the
proposed solutions should be backed up by validated statistical analysis. In the “Improve”
phase, the Six Sigma team should generate a list of solutions (Noone et al., 2010). In the
final phase “Control,”the Six Sigma team makes sure the improvements are sustained
(Noone et al., 2010). Six Sigma leadership ensures every step in each phase of a project
targets the ultimate goal (McCarty et al., 2005).
Continuous change and improvement: LSS organizations create an environment of
continuous change through aligning the organization to the outstanding model
(Pamfilie et al., 2012). Six Sigma is more than just a quality improvement technique. It is
a change leadership approach that integrates an organization’s leadership capacity with
quality improvement, process refinement, and the Voice of Customer (Thomson, 2003).
Continuous improvement is a concept that is present in Lean and Six Sigma models
(Drohomeretski et al., 2014). Moreover, there are many companies that adopt LSS as the only
model for continuous improvement because Six Sigma, Lean manufacturing and other
models cannot solve every problem alone in companies (Drohomeretski et al., 2014).
This LSS leadership model is a new approach that evolves from the traditional
leadership models. Six Sigma leadership practice is rooted in contingency model, situational
leadership model, and path-goal model (McCarty et al., 2005). In addition, Six Sigma leaders
consider leadership is a multi-dimension complex, which involves both transformational
and transactional leadership as two key components (McCarty et al., 2005). Besides adopting
principles from mature traditional leadership theories, LSS leadership has its own unique
characteristics: leadership team, statistical thinking, and continuous change and
improvement. Based on the literature review, the proposed LSS leadership model is
illustrated in Figure 2.
Building on traditional leadership with the service orientation of adaptive work is a
process. HEI leaders face international, national and regional challenges in a competitive
education industry. The traditional educational provider must act within a very narrowed
window of opportunities before other educational provider seize all the opportunities by
innovation (Farnsworth, 2007). We face a time to find leaders who can direct HEI through
current challenges. We must rethink the definition of leadership and transform the
leaders in HEIs (Farnsworth, 2007). The LSS leadership model provides a practical way to
644
IJPPM
66,5
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
transform the leadership in HEIs. The model incorporates both technical and adaptive
challenges that are common to the LSS barriers to adoption within HEI.
The LSS methodology empowers an organization to leverage its ability to deliver the
best performance. LSS leaders have skills, techniques and tools to find sustainable solutions
to reduce wastes, optimize resources and improve process efficiency. In manufacturing
industry, LSS methodology has been widely applied to eliminate manufacturing process
wastes and reduce defect rate. In the service industry, LSS methodology is mainly
implemented to mitigate operational wastes and enhance customer satisfaction. In the
public sector, LSS has been utilized in various government services like tax collection,
classified information review process, and licensing service (Maleyeff and Campus, 2007).
However, the power and strengths of LSS have not been widely acknowledged in
HEIs yet. To carry out HEI’s mission and revolve HEI’s challenges, HEI leaders need to
recognize the urgency to engage with LSS. For example, to serve more prospective
students in the future, HEIs have to optimize resources to ensure future students receive at
leastassameleveleducationexperienceascurrent students do. In addition, HEIs have the
responsibility to remove barriers for students to start or continue higher education by
reducing tuition. Therefore, HEIs leaders have to find the best ways to identify and
eliminate waste and reduce operational costs. The LSS methodology is the most advanced
managementmethodologyinthatrealm.SoadoptingtheLSSapproachinHEIis
completely reasonable and necessary. At some level, HEI is very similar to any other
service industry. They both perform service activities and, therefore, focus on reducing
operational waste. For service organizations, LSS leadership provides a solution to
increase competitiveness and motive all employees to reach personal and organizational
goals by applying the LSS (Pamfilie et al., 2012).
But the LSS leadership is rarely applied in HEIs, even though the traditional leadership
in HEI is fading. In HEIs, the current leaders respond slowly to the rapid changing
environment, are reluctant to make organizational changes, and have limited channels to
listen to the voices of customers. Compared to all current leadership models, the LSS
leadership model is the only and best solution for current HEI leaders to quickly complete
the transformation and support LSS methodology implementation in a HEI.
Due to the complexity of the university environment, and the lack of quantitative
research with respect to the application of LSS in HEI, we propose the following
development of LSS leadership principles, which could have a positive impact on how the
HEI functions. HEIs should organize LSS workshops to educate key personnel on these
LSS
Technical
Aspects
Service Leadership +
Adaptive Work
Traditional Leadership
Source: Heifetz and Laurie (1997)
Figure 2.
Proposed Lean Six
Sigma leadership
model
645
LSS leadership
in HEIs
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
principles to begin establishing a LSS culture. This would also avoid the issues related to
sharing and privacy of HEI confidential information:
•Aligning top-level management goals with those of faculty: the ultimate success of a
university eventually depends on faculty. There is a need for incorporating a sense of
process ownership among faculty and administration and aligning responsibilities
and objectives with the short and long-term goals of the university. Hence, it is very
important that faculty share the same beliefs and motivation in improving the quality
of education as the top management of the HEI.
•Employee engagement: lack of management bandwidth is a major obstacle for many
institutions. One of the most important characteristics of LSS leadership is employee
engagement. LSS leaders support organizational harmony and encourage cross-
functional experts to come together and propose solutions for process excellence.
•Data-driven decision making: unfortunately, the upper management in HEIs still may
favor decision making based on intuition and personal experience rather than on the
basis of data. With the evolution of analytics and the tremendous opportunities
proposed by data and the insights which could be drawn, it would be highly
advisable to adopt a data-driven approach and build the short and long-term goals
around data and analytics. A LSS culture would aid the growth of data-driven
decision making.
•Cultural change: HEIs are naive in their approach to tackle challenges and problems
in comparison to the profit making industries. One of the major impediments in
achieving their goals is driving cultural change among people. People are reluctant to
change. At present, HEIs may lack leaders trained in change management who can
help enable people across the organization to adopt modern processes and
continuous improvement strategies. Having leaders trained in the LSS approach
could facilitate this change smoothly.
•Reward and recognition: adopting a reward and recognition scheme as usually
utilized by LSS leaders would motivate internal customers, namely, the
administration and faculty to improve their knowledge enterprises for the benefit
of society.
•Timely completion of projects: though one may argue that many LSS projects do not
complete on time, most of the projects led by green belt and black belt leaders
are completed within six to eight months. The identified process excellence projects
in HEIs would need targeted completed deadlines so making them significantly
more efficient.
Concerning the ways in which leadership competencies can be developed in HEIs, it is clear
from the research that leadership development interventions need to begin far earlier in the
careers of those who work in academe, so that success is built from below, rather than from
above (Spendlove, 2007). The emphasis should be not only on developing individual leaders,
and building human capital, but also on developing leadership throughout the organization,
to develop social capital and networked relationships (Day, 2000). Every crisis is an
opportunity in disguise. The rising concerns in HEI call for a process improvement
framework like LSS and leadership in LSS to improve the students’success.
4. Future work
HEIs are in fierce competition. Globalization, technology development and continuously
increased financial burdens force HEIs to reduce operational waste and improve efficiency.
The best practice to achieve that goal is to apply LSS methodology. Lean management
646
IJPPM
66,5
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
determines the problems that occur in process flow. The delays in processes and common
waste can be identified and eliminated. For value adding processes, Six Sigma methodology
targets various problems that produce intensive errors or defects. Implementing LSS
methodology provides HEIs with a foreseeable opportunity to enhance quality performance.
Current leadership models in HEIs need review. The traditional leadership models in
HEIs respond slowly to the rapidly changing educational environments. Moreover, the
problems occurred and created under the current leadership models cannot be solved at the
same level of leadership. Some HEI leaders have tried to adopt private sector management
principles. However, a HEI has a unique culture, structure and processes. Directly adopting
a management methodology like LSS without management-level changes leads to failures
and risks. Therefore, LSS leadership is needed for HEIs to reform its outdated leadership,
management methodology and principles, and solve the current issues. In particular, LSS is
a top-down methodology, which requires leaders to understand and support LSS.
The LSS leadership model integrates with traditional leadership models, leadership
team, statistical thinking and continuous change and improvement. LSS leaders apply
different traditional leadership models in different scenarios. Therefore, HEI leaders do not
need to worry about adapting new management methodologies due to the versatility of LSS
leadership. LSS leadership does not depend on a particular person in a project team. Instead,
the leadership reflects on all team members. In this way, everyone in the team has leadership
objectives and everyone can evolve to be an upper-level leader with the adequate amount of
training and practice. If HEIs adopt HEI leadership, it helps the HEIs cultivate future leaders
in the organization. LSS project teams use statistical techniques to accurately and effectively
solve the problems with unknown true causes. The data and facts establish HEIs
leaders’confidence in making changes and improvements. LSS leadership creates a
continuous improvement organization by empowering individuals to identify possible
improvement opportunities.
The LSS methodology has been successfully adopted in manufacturing and service
industry sectors. A significant number of companies already have been benefiting from LSS
methodologies with improved efficiency and effectiveness. But the HEIs are far behind the
private sector in adopting the advanced management methodology. The internal and
external reasons explain why HEIs are not active practitioners of LSS. An internal reason is
HEI’s current leadership is reluctant to change. The external reason is the voices of
HEIs’customers are hardly heard by HEI leaders. The internal reason indicates that there
will be barriers for HEIs to adopt the LSS leadership. The external reason shows that
there is the necessity to adopt LSS and LSS leadership, because the LSS methodology is
customer focused.
LSS leadership is a practical leadership that LSS leaders spontaneously carry out in their
work. However, LSS leadership does not have a well-defined framework. This paper
proposes a preliminary LSS leadership model based on systematic review. The next phase
of the study is developing a systematic interview protocol based on a number of themes
emerged from the systemic review. The interview participants will be selected from private
sector and academia. In industry, the interviewees will be professional practitioners in
continuous improvement. In academia, the interviewees will be professional researchers
study LSS and leadership. Followed by the interviews, the conceptual LSS leadership model
will be refined then tested with case studies. The case studies would be LSS projects in HEI
where the purpose of the work is to examine and justify the refined model in a practical way
and make further refinements.
5. Conclusions
LSS leadership has achieved improved bottom line results and customer satisfaction in a
wide range of industries, but its application in HEIs remains to be explored. In this paper,
647
LSS leadership
in HEIs
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
the results indicate that HEI leaders need to start recognizing the urgencies, potentials and
benefits of embracing LSS leadership in HEIs. This paper shows that an effective LSS
leadership model may improve the quality of education delivery, reduce non-value added
costs and enhance operational efficiency. The proposed LSS leadership model illustrates
that LSS leadership serves best for HEIs to implement LSS methodology, make continuous
improvement and sustain improvements. The model provides a conceptual idea of the key
features of LSS leadership and the reasons to adopt the model. LSS leadership may be the
foundation for HEIs to transform to an organization that adapts to a changing environment
where customer satisfaction is crucial, and efficiency of process delivery, utilizing with
continuous improvement principles, recognizing the principles of service and governance.
An, adaptive leadership structure may ensure a successful adoption of the LSS techniques
as a basis for that continuous improvement and help foster an environment that recognizes
and sustains achievements through LSS. The limitation here is that this proposed leadership
model remains untested in an HEI context. However, the model proposed in this paper is
based upon a foundation of traditional leadership, recognizes the characteristics of HEIs and
the challenges of adaptation in a changing operating context, focuses on service and
governance, topped by LSS methods that mark a modern, technical organization. This
approach may not be definitive, but recognizes an evolving approach to meet disruption.
References
Antony, J., Krishan, N., Cullen, D. and Kumar, M. (2012), “Lean Six Sigma for higher education
institutions (HEI)”,International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61
No. 8, pp. 940-948.
Atmaca, E. and Girenes, S.S. (2011), “Lean Six Sigma methodology and application”,Quality &
Quantity, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 2107-2127.
Barnett, R. (2004), “Learning for an unknown future”,Higher Education Research & Development,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 247-260.
Basham, L.M. (2012), “Transformational leadership characteristics necessary for today’s leaders in
higher education”,Journal of International Education Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 343-347.
Bass, B.M. and Bass, R. (2009), The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial
Applications, 4th ed., Free Press, New York, NY.
Day, D.V. (2000), “Leadership development: a review in context”,The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 581-683.
Denneen, J. (2014), “Why America’s universities need to go to business school”, September, available at:
www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140917134655-169567318-why-america-s-universities-need-
to-go-to-business-school?trk=tod-home-art-list-small_2 (accessed September 17, 2014).
Drew, G. (2006), “Balancing academic advancement with business effectiveness? The dual role for
senior university leaders”,The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Organizational
Change, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 117-125.
Drohomeretski, E., Gouvea da Costa, S.E., Pinheiro de Lima, E. and Garbuio, P.A.D.R. (2014), “Lean, six
sigma and Lean Six Sigma: an analysis based on operations strategy”,International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 804-824.
Ebersole, J. (2014), “Top issues facing higher education in 2014”,Forbes, January, p. 1, available at:
www.forbes.com/sites/johnebersole/2014/01/13/top-issues-facing-higher-education-in-2014/
Farnsworth, K.A. (2007), Leadership as Service: A New Model for Higher Education in a New Century,
Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967), A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Given, R.J. (2008), “Transformational leadership: the impact on organizational and personal outcomes”,
Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 4-24.
648
IJPPM
66,5
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
Goodall, A. (2006), “Should top universities be led by top researchers and are they? A citations
analysis”,Journal of Documentation, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 388-441.
Greenleaf, R.K. and Spears, L.C. (2002), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate
Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ.
Heifetz, R. (1994), Leadership Without Easy Answers, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.
Heifetz, R. and Laurie, D.L. (1997), “The work of leadership”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 1,
pp. 124-134.
Hernandez, M., Eberly, M.B., Avolio, B.J. and Johnson, M.D. (2011), “The loci and mechanisms of
leadership: exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory”,The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 1165-1185.
House, R.J. and Aditya, R.N. (1997), “The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis?”,Journal of
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 409-473.
Ibukun, W.O., Oyewole, B.K. and Abe, T.O. (2011), “Personality characteristics and principal leadership
effectiveness in Ekiti State, Nigeria”,International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 246-262.
Jamrisko., M. and Kolet, I. (2014), “College tuition costs soar: chart of the day”, available at: www.
bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-18/college-tuition-costs-soar-chart-of-the-day.html (accessed
September 25, 2014).
Kanter, M.J. (2011), “American higher education: ‘first in the world’”,Change, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 7-19,
available at: www.changemag.org/archives/back%20issues/2011/may-june%202011/first-in-
the-world-full.html
Kim, D.S. (2010), “Eliciting success factors of applying six sigma in an academic library: a case study”,
Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 25-38.
Kirkpatrick, S. and Locke, E. (1991), “Leadership: do traits matter”,Academy of Management Executive,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 48-60, available at: www.jstor.org/stable/4165007
Laurena, A. and Antony, J. (2012), “Critical success factors for the effective implementation of Lean
Sigma”,International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 274-283.
McCarty, T., Daniels, L., Bremer, M. and Gupta, P. (2005), The Six Sigma Black Belt Handbook,McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
McCleskey, J.A. (2014), “Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and leadership
development”,Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 117-130.
Maleyeff, J. and Campus, H. (2007), “Improving service delivery in government with Lean Six Sigma”,
IBM Center for the Business of Government, Washington, DC, pp. 1-45.
Marshall, S. (2007), Strategic Leadership of Change in Higher Education, Routledge, London.
Mead, P., Morgan, M. and Heath, C. (1999), “Equipping leaders to capitalize on the outcomes of quality
assessment in higher education”,Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 147-156.
Merriam-Webster (2016), “Governance, Merriam Webster Dictionary,”available at: www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/governance (accessed October 25, 2014).
Muijs, D., Harris, A., Lumby, J., Morrison, M. and Sood, K. (2006), “Leadership and leadership
development in highly effective further education providers: is there a relationship?”,Journal of
Further and Higher Education, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 87-106.
Muthanna, A. and Karaman, A.C. (2014), “Higher education challenges in Yemen: discourses on
English teacher education”,International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 37, pp. 40-47.
Neumann, Y. and Neumann, E.F. (1999), “Equipping leaders to capitalize on the outcomes of quality
assessment in higher education”,Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 147-155.
Noone, B.M., Namasivayam, K. and Tomlinson, S.H. (2010), “Examining the application of six sigma in the
service exchange”,Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 273-293.
649
LSS leadership
in HEIs
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
Odumeru, J.A. and Ogbonna, I.G. (2013), “Transformational vs transactional leadership theories:
evidence in literature”,International Review of Management and Business Research, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 355-361.
Pamfilie, R., Petcu, A.J. and Draghici, M. (2012), “The importance of leadership in driving a strategic
Lean Six Sigma management”,Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 58, pp. 187-196,
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.992.
Pries, K.H. (2010), Six Sigma for the New Millennium, New Age International Publisher, New Delhi.
Pyzdek, T. and Keller, P. (2009), The Six Sigma Handbook, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Ramsden, P. (1998), “Managing the effective university”,Higher Education Research and Development,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 347-370.
Spendlove, M. (2007), “Competencies for effective leadership in higher education”,International Journal
of Education Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 407-417.
Teferra, D. and Altbach, P.G. (2004), “African higher education: challenges for the 21st century”,Higher
Education, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 21-50.
Thomson, T. (2003), “Developing change leadership capacity”, in Bertels, T. (Ed.), Rath & Strong’s
Six Sigma Leadership Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, pp. 478-486.
Van Ameijde, J.D.J., Nelson, P.C., Billsberry, J. and van Meurs, N. (2009), “Improving leadership in
higher education institutions: a distributed perspective”,Higher Education, Vol. 58 No. 6,
pp. 763-779.
Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., De Windt, N. and Alkema, J. (2014), “Same difference?
Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational
leadership to follower outcomes”,The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 544-562.
Wang, H. (2011), “Access to higher education in China: differences in opportunity”,Frontiers of
Education in China, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 227-247.
Weisbrod, B.A., Ballou, J.P. and Asch, E.D. (2008), Mission and Money Understating the University,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Yang, R. (2003), “Globalisation and higher education development: a critical analysis”,International
Review of Education, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 269-291, doi: 10.1023/A:1025303303245.
Yielder, J. and Codling, A. (2004), “Management and leadership in the university”,Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 315-328.
Yukl, G. (1971), “Toward a behavioral theory of leadership”,Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 414-440.
Zaccaro, S.J. (2007), “Trait-based perspectives of leadership”,American Psychologist,Vol.62No.1,pp.6-16.
Corresponding author
Chad Laux can be contacted at: claux@purdue.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
650
IJPPM
66,5
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:46 05 July 2017 (PT)
